Arizona's New Immigration Law

Funny you make this post but don't post any of the stuff I have post that is always proven wrong. I'm sure you can find some post because of all the post I have made but your the king of shit here.


Good Morning! Check out the sleeping thread more people loving you in that thread.

On any other subject firstdown and crowd are very enjoyable folks, I too sometimes get dragged into these threads out of boredom at work.


First guess you miss this post? Thanks for the personal attack (king of shit) this morning. I might just start lumping you in TTE data file.


What is getting really old fast on this site is there is a handful of folks on here that take every parking lot thread and turn it into a political discussion. Yes I might not agree with everything everyone has to say but I don't need to be en-dated with a billion "facts" about the Regan years every time someone opens a new thread in the parking lot.

Take GMScud for the most part I would say we don't see eye to eye on political matters but he presents his opinion in real terms, discussing the issue and his feelings and listening to others opinion. The handful I am speaking of comes in here and rattle off all this stupid post that are like 1000 words and they refuse to listen to anyone's opinion, they just keep post vomiting their "pesky facts".

Seriously how many thousand word post do you have to have on the Regan campaign before you realize no one is listening to you anymore?

Funny you make this post but don't post any of the stuff I have post that is always proven wrong. I'm sure you can find some post because of all the post I have made but your the king of shit here.

Are you missing some words here?

Are you missing some words here?

Well Mredskin is complaining about long post so I was trying to cut down some.

Yes on the British, no on the Dutch. However, your whole statement of Europe (generally) being a non-productive continent is ridiculous. I just compared the exchange rates of the Mexican, Chilean Peso, and Brazil Real to both the Euro and the US $, and I don't see the correlation that says they are worth more than either the $ or Euro. So other than a general statement as to the cause of the decline of British and Dutch Empires, the rest of your soliloquy is really not grounded in any type of reality.

top 12 GDP(in Millions of USD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29)
1 United States 14,256,275
2 Japan 5,068,059
3 People's Republic of China 4,908,9822
4 Germany 3,352,742
5 France 2,675,951
6 United Kingdom 2,183,607
7 Italy 2,118,264
8 Brazil 1,574,039
9 Spain 1,464,040
10 Canada 1,336,427
11 India 1,235,975
12 Russia 1,229,227



Wow we are more than double our next closest competitor and this is not even counting the dope trade. Holy cow.

Beem brings up another great point, speaking of gov't invention, the mortgage securities and housing crash were the catalyst to knock our economy down. Many of the mortgages that were made, were done so under gov't pressure/programs. These risky mortgages wouldn't normally have been taken on by the banks with normal lending/qualification criteria in place.

LOL...this post is full lies and not backed up by reality. The gov never ever told or foced the banks to give LIAR Loans.

LOL...this post is full lies and not backed up reality. The gov never ever told or foced the banks to give LIAR Loans.


well, one small part of the housing boom/bust was certainly people getting into mortgages they might not have previously qualified for... BUT, there's been a lot exaggeration and mythology that it was "the minorities being given loans" that brought down our economy. uh, not quite. like i said, that was a small part of the housing problem (but plenty of whites got into loans they should have). but Tyrone's and Julio's mortgages aren't to blame for wallstreet peddling toxic shit like Credit Default Swaps.

Mexico's illegals laws tougher than Arizona's - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/03/mexicos-illegals-laws-tougher-than-arizonas/)

????Que?????

LOL...this post is full lies and not backed up by reality. The gov never ever told or foced the banks to give LIAR Loans.Wrong. from wiki

Government policies
Main article: Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_subprime_mortgage_cris is)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ef/U.S._Home_Ownership_and_Subprime_Origination_Share .png/220px-U.S._Home_Ownership_and_Subprime_Origination_Share .png (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/File:U.S._Home_Ownership_and_Subprime_Origination_ Share.png) http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/File:U.S._Home_Ownership_and_Subprime_Origination_ Share.png)
U.S. Subprime lending expanded dramatically 2004-2006


Both government failed regulation and deregulation contributed to the crisis. In testimony before Congress both the Securities and Exchange Commission (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Securities_and_Exchange_Commission) (SEC) and Alan Greenspan (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Alan_Greenspan) conceded failure in allowing the self-regulation of investment banks.[103] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-102)[104] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-103)
Increasing home ownership has been the goal of several presidents including Roosevelt, Reagan, Clinton and G.W.Bush. In 1982, Congress passed the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act (AMTPA), which allowed non-federally chartered housing creditors to write adjustable-rate mortgages. Among the new mortgage loan types created and gaining in popularity in the early 1980s were adjustable-rate, option adjustable-rate, balloon-payment and interest-only mortgages. These new loan types are credited with replacing the long standing practice of banks making conventional fixed-rate, amortizing mortgages. Among the criticisms of banking industry deregulation that contributed to the savings and loan crisis (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis) was that Congress failed to enact regulations that would have prevented exploitations by these loan types. Subsequent widespread abuses of predatory lending occurred with the use of adjustable-rate mortgages.[2] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-DODD-1)[37] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-The_downturn_in_facts_and_figures-36)[105] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-104) Approximately 80% of subprime mortgages are adjustable-rate mortgages.[2] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-DODD-1)
In 1995, the GSEs like Fannie Mae began receiving government tax incentives for purchasing mortgage backed securities which included loans to low income borrowers. Thus began the involvement of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with the subprime market.[106] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-Leonnig-105) In 1996, HUD (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/HUD_(housing)) set a goal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that at least 42% of the mortgages they purchase be issued to borrowers whose household income was below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.[107] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-106) From 2002 to 2006, as the U.S. subprime market grew 292% over previous years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac combined purchases of subprime securities rose from $38 billion to around $175 billion per year before dropping to $90 billion per year, which included $350 billion of Alt-A (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Alt-A) securities. Fannie Mae had stopped buying Alt-A products in the early 1990s because of the high risk of default. By 2008, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owned, either directly or through mortgage pools they sponsored, $5.1 trillion in residential mortgages, about half the total U.S. mortgage market.[108] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-107) The GSE have always been highly leveraged, their net worth as of 30 June 2008 being a mere US$114 billion.[109] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-108) When concerns arose in September 2008 regarding the ability of the GSE to make good on their guarantees, the Federal government was forced to place the companies into a conservatorship, effectively nationalizing them at the taxpayers' expense.[110] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-publications1-109)[111] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-110)
The Glass-Steagall Act (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act) was enacted after the Great Depression (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Great_Depression). It separated commercial banks (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Commercial_bank) and investment banks (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Investment_bank), in part to avoid potential conflicts of interest between the lending activities of the former and rating activities of the latter. Economist Joseph Stiglitz (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz) criticized the repeal of the Act. He called its repeal the "culmination of a $300 million lobbying effort by the banking and financial services industries...spearheaded in Congress by Senator Phil Gramm (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Phil_Gramm)." He believes it contributed to this crisis because the risk-taking culture of investment banking dominated the more conservative commercial banking culture, leading to increased levels of risk-taking and leverage during the boom period.[112] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-vanityfair.com-111) The Federal government bailout of thrifts (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Savings_and_loan_association) during the savings and loan crisis (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis) of the late 1980s may have encouraged other lenders to make risky loans, and thus given rise to moral hazard (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Moral_hazard).[38] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-brown1-37)[113] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-112)
Conservatives and Libertarians have also debated the possible effects of the Community Reinvestment Act (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act) (CRA), with detractors claiming that the Act encouraged lending to uncreditworthy borrowers,[114] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-113)[115] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-114)[116] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-DiLorenzo-115)[117] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-116) and defenders claiming a thirty year history of lending without increased risk.[118] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-117)[119] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-118)[120] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-119)[121] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-Ellis-120) Detractors also claim that amendments to the CRA in the mid-1990s, raised the amount of mortgages issued to otherwise unqualified low-income borrowers, and allowed the securitization of CRA-regulated mortgages, even though a fair number of them were subprime.[122] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-121)[123] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-122)
Both Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Randall_Kroszner) and FDIC (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/FDIC) Chairman Sheila Bair have stated their belief that the CRA was not to blame for the crisis.[124] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-123)
[125] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-124)
Economist Paul Krugman (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Paul_Krugman) argued in January 2010 that the simultaneous growth of the residential and commercial real estate pricing bubbles undermines the case made by those who argue that Fannie Mae (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Fannie_Mae), Freddie Mac (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Freddie_Mac), CRA or predatory lending were primary causes of the crisis. In other words, bubbles in both markets developed even though only the residential market was affected by these potential causes.[126] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-125)

I never said "forced", but there were definitely programs/pressure. I never said this was the "single" reason for the economic crash. I also never blamed a specific politcal party or mentioned race.

SS33, read your post, read mine and then read the first paragraph of the article you posted.

Government deregulation and failed regulation of the commercial and investment banking industries were important contributors to the subprime mortgage crisis. These included allowing the self-regulation of Wall Street's investment banks and the failed regulation of Wall Street rating agencies, which were responsible for incorrectly rating some $3.2 trillion dollars of subprime mortgage-backed securities.[1][2] The introduction of new mortgage products by the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act (AMTPA), passed by Congress in 1982, ended the long standing practice of limiting banks to making conventional fixed-rate mortgages.[3] Approximately 80% of U.S. mortgages issued in recent years to subprime borrowers were adjustable-rate mortgages.[4] Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also carry blame. The two GSEs purchased over $500 billion dollars in high risk Alt-A mortgage products, which they had previously classified as too risky for purchase in the 1990s.[5] Both Alan Greenspan and the SEC testified before Congress that the shadow banking system was not effectively regulated, even though it had become nearly as important as the regulated depository banking system in providing credit.

You can bash the gov for the lack of regulation and oversight and I won't defend that but I can not accept "pressure/programs" line. Never!